LAKSHMI RANI DEY Vs. RITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is against the judgement and decree respectively dated 30th September, 2004 and 11th October, 2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd First Track Court at Chandernagore in Title Appeal No. 48 of 1995 reversing the judgment and decree respectively dated 27th January, 1995 and 3rd February, 1989. According to the plaint case both the plaintiffs, proforma defendant no.2 and the predecessor-in-interest of defendant nos. 2 to 8 and 10 jointly purchased Ka schedule property by a registered deed of sale on 30th December, 1958 for valuable consideration and jointly possessing the same. The description of the boundary of the suit plot in the deed appeared to be wrong and taking advantage of this wrong description the defendant no.1 in collusion with others forcibly ousted the plaintiff s and defendant nos. 2 to 8 and 10 from the suit plot and put fencing around the same on 11th May, 1986. The plaintiffs and proforma defendant jointly made out a case that defendant no. 1 had no right, title and interest and even possession in the suit plot. They have also prayed for declaration and recovery of possession upon declaration that the defendant no.1 is not the owner of the suit plot together with permanent and mandatory injunction against him.

(2.) Proforma defendant nos. 3 to 8 and 10 filed joint written statement and supported the plaint case. The defendant no.1 has filed another written statement denying all material allegations made in the plaint and claimed that he was in possession of the entire 22.00 sataks (decimals) land of suit Khatian no. 120. Ka schedule property is a danga plot being plot no. 238 comprising 10.60 sataks of land in khatian no. 120. Plaintiffs claimed declaration over this 10.60 sataks land on the basis of purchase deed dated 13.12.1958. There is another plot no. 239 which is a pond under same khatian no. 120. This pond comprises 11.4 stataks of land. Both these plots no. 238 and 239 previously belonged to one Narayan Chandra Dey who sold plot no. 328 to the plaintiff and proforma defendants and plot no. 239 was sold to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant no.1 on the same day, that is, on 13.12.1958 by two different sale deeds. The boundary of the suit plot no. 238, according to the plaintiff had been shown in the purchase deed was wrong.

(3.) It is the defendants claim that though his predecessor-in-interest purchased 11.4 sataks of pond from dag no. 239, he took possession of the entire land of 22.00 sataks and delivered its possession to the defendant no.1 on rent in 1968. It is the further case of the defendant no.1 that he, ultimately, purchased the entire area in both the plots that is 22.00 decimals from his predecessor-ininterest and have been possessing the same, peacefully without interruption, adversely to the knowledge of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants. The defendant no.1 further claims that R.S. Record-of-Rights is wrong and the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession of the of the said Ka schedule property. The defendant no.1 has prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.